←back to thread

Programmers and software developers lost the plot on naming their tools

(larr.net)
311 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kixiQu ◴[11 Dec 25 21:27 UTC] No.46237390[source]▶
I believe strongly in this counterargument:

https://medium.com/better-programming/software-component-nam...

Small summary: external identifiers are hard to change, so projects will evolve such that they are not accurately descriptive after time.

(Less discussed there, but: In a complex or decentralized ecosystem, it's also the case that you come across many "X Manager"/"X Service"/"X State Manager"/"X Workflow Service" simultaneously, and then have to rely on a lot of thick context to know what the distinctions are)

replies(5): >>46239169 #>>46239759 #>>46239784 #>>46239810 #>>46239834 #
1. pksebben ◴[12 Dec 25 00:03 UTC] No.46239169[source]▶
I suppose it depends on your goals, but that scope restraint can be a good thing.

Do one thing, do it well, and while you're at it call yourself by the thing you do so you remember that's what you ought to be doing. A bit wordy for unix but you get the idea.